Fischer v. Verizon New York, Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:18-cv-11628
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Fischer v. Verizon New York, Judge Abrams denied permission to seal settlement-enforcement papers and required public filing of the settlement terms.
Fischer, Verizon New York Inc., Verizon Online LLC, and members of the public seeking access to the court’s settlement-enforcement filings.
What happened
In Fischer v. Verizon New York, Inc., Verizon asked to file under seal papers supporting a motion to enforce a settlement term sheet reached after an August 2022 mediation. The requested papers included a letter brief, a declaration with the signed term sheet, and a proposed order containing the settlement terms.
Verizon said it sought sealing because Fischer’s counsel believed the motion and related documents had to remain confidential. The court ruled that any settlement agreement the parties wanted the court to enforce had to be placed on the public record, and that the enforcement motion also had to be filed publicly. A private confidentiality agreement did not overcome the strong presumption that judicial documents are open to the public.
Judge Ronnie Abrams denied the application. She allowed the parties to explain by November 17, 2022, if circumstances made those principles inapplicable and why a different request would be consistent with public access to court documents.
The detailed version
- Fischer v. Verizon New York, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-11628
- Ronnie Abrams
- Nov. 7, 2022
Background
Verizon New York Inc. and Verizon Online LLC, collectively identified as Verizon, requested permission to file under seal a motion to enforce a settlement term sheet. The parties had signed the term sheet after mediation in August 2022. Verizon’s proposed sealed filings were a supporting letter brief, a declaration attaching the executed term sheet, and a proposed order containing the settlement terms.
Verizon stated that it had consulted Fischer’s counsel, who maintained that the motion and related documents had to remain confidential. Verizon therefore asked to file the materials under seal to avoid a confidentiality dispute and because of potential confidentiality concerns. Verizon alternatively requested a minute order confirming that any motion to enforce the settlement should be filed publicly, including the settlement terms.
Court’s reasoning
The court stated that when parties seek a court order enforcing a settlement agreement, the agreement’s terms must be placed on the public record and formally approved by the court under its individual rules. The court relied on Second Circuit and Southern District of New York decisions recognizing public-access requirements for settlement agreements that parties ask a court to enforce.
The court also ruled that the parties’ agreement to keep the settlement confidential did not overcome the presumption of public access to a settlement agreement submitted for enforcement. Any motion to enforce the settlement agreement likewise had to be filed publicly. The court invited the parties to explain by November 17, 2022, if circumstances made these principles inapplicable and why their request was consistent with the strong presumption favoring public access to judicial documents.
Disposition
Judge Ronnie Abrams denied the application to file the settlement-enforcement materials under seal. The opinion does not decide whether the settlement agreement should ultimately be enforced; it addresses how any enforcement request and its terms must be filed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.